Curtis Duhart v. P.L. Vasquez

MEMORANDUM

Curtis Duhart appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Because the denial of Du-hart’s habeas petition was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent, we affirm. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(l)-(2); Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 , 131 S.Ct. 770 , 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011).

The state court did not unreasonably determine that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have concluded Duhart knew or reasonably should have known that Jane Doe had a developmental disability rendering her incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse with him. See CahPenal Code § 261(a)(1); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Dr. Edward Frey testified that Doe had a low IQ and mild mental retardation, making it difficult for Doe to verbalize her thoughts. Officers Douglas Loreman and Brian Wilson, and nurse Ann Rowney each testified that they quickly noticed Doe’s “flat,” emotionless expression on the evening of the incident. See, e.g., People v. Hillhouse,…